The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought explanation from the Centre over its failure to invoke the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 against Patanjali Ayurved for broadcasting misleading advertisements.
A bench of Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah mentioned that the AYUSH Ministry of the Centre had sent a letter to all the state governments in 2023 directing them not to take any action under Rule 170 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
The Court pointed out that the Minister of State had submitted in the Parliament that the government had taken steps against such ads but now the Centre says Rule 170 will not be given effect to. Asking if the government can put on hold the exercise of law when it is in power, Justice Amanullah stated that in such cases it is a colorable exercise of power and violation of law. Meanwhile, Justice Kohli remarked that it seems that the authorities were busy looking at the revenue.
Subsequently, the court ordered the Centre to explain the letter to the Drugs Controller Authority, States, omitting Rule 170. The Court further decided to take a closer look into implementation of laws such as the Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act.
The apex court clarified that this examination would not just be limited to having these laws have been enforced against Patanjali Ayurved, but would concern its implementation against misleading ads for other Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) as well.
Furthermore, the court expressed that it was concerned with such misleading ads taking the public for a ride, and affecting the health of babies and children, and the elderly, who have been consuming medicines after being influenced by the misleading ads.
During the hearing, the top court also asked Patanjali Ayurved if the public apology published by them in the newspaper on Monday were as big as their advertisements. On Monday, Patanjali Ayurved published advertisements in certain newspapers expressing apology for the mistake of publishing advertisements and holding a press conference even after the advocates made a statement in the apex court. This comes after Patanjali’s counsel assured the bench that they issue a public apology for their mistake. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for Patanjali informed the bench about the advertisements.
Subsequently, Justice Kohli asked if the apology was the same size as their advertisements? To this, the counsel said that the apology costs tens of lakhs, and was published in 67 newspapers.
Adjourning the hearing till April 30, the bench asked Patanjali’s lawyers to bring on record the copy of the apology advertisements.